politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the next general election will be in 2022
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the next general election will be in 2022
At the end of my session before the House of Lords Committee yesterday the chairman, Lord Lipsey asked for our thoughts on the likely year of the next general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://tinyurl.com/yb6sclbm
A Tory MP is set to miss a debate and vote on welfare policy because he will be running the line at a Champions League football tie in Barcelona.
Douglas Ross has been listed as assistant referee at the Camp Nou stadium for Wednesday night's match against Greek side Olympiacos.
The game kicks off at 7.45pm UK time – 45 minutes after MPs at Westminster are expected to vote on a Labour motion calling for the controversial rollout of universal credit to be postponed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/17/uk-most-severe-terror-threat-ever-mi5-islamist
Should listen to this;
https://www.lrb.co.uk/2017/10/17/adam-shatz/absolute-revolt
Especially ~24-29 min
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "There will be many Scottish Conservative representatives in this debate.
"Douglas has held more than 50 surgeries since becoming an MP and has met personally with (Work and Pensions Secretary) David Gauke to discuss local cases which have arisen from those.
"Despite what the SNP thinks, the people of Moray are right behind Douglas and his refereeing, as they showed decisively when they elected him as their MP just a few months ago."
Certainly more reliable than the previous thread discussing boundary changes for NI that haven't actually been published.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41656667
It may be this was a hidden factor in GE2017. Patients (and their friends and families) know when they are on a waiting list, regardless of the newspaper headlines.
In practice though the fixed term parliament act could be the only reason why the election runs to 2022. I can see a period where we have a government in office but the opposition being in power, driving the legislative programme thanks to increased rebellions against a government stupid enough to (for example) insist there is no problem with 6 week waits for Universal Credit. We have a zombie PM- I can see how that extends to a zombie government, held in place by the FTPA because the numbers in the commons don't let it govern but also don't allow a new election or alternate government formed from within it's members.
Final point. It's increasingly clear that a stubborn emotionally stunted politically neutered PM has every intention of lashing her hands to the wheel to maintain a steady course whilst her "colleagues" fight around her. The course is towards the titanic iceberg, and it will sink the Tory party. MPs can and probably will prevent an early election and thus save their own seats for a few years. At the expense of an economic calamity for the country that huggers their party for another generation as Black Wednesday and Maastrict did last time.
The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.
It is not difficult to imagine that many younger adults who were potential remain voters but not on the register suddenly realised that "voting matters" and got themselves on the register before GE 2017. Do we have the break down in registered voters to see this?
One has to seriously wonder about the quality of civil servants in the DWP. The leadership through most of this period under IDS was laughably incompetent (at least you could laugh if if you were not dependent on benefits) but even so. The idea that a majority of the membership once thought that man was the one to lead them into a GE with a view to becoming PM is a deeply depressing one.
Meh. Parliament is tied into a load of formerly sensible, but now ridiculous pre-internet conventions.
Legislation via wiki, parliamentary votes via iphone. Be physically present in parliament once a month and sign to confirm all of your contributions/votes are genuine.
Parliament should be 99% virtual, with avatar MPs.
I know ‘the people’ voted for Brexit but by no means all of us did. And, while the question hasn’t been formally asked, it’s quite likely that, for example, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and WTO rules wouldn’t be the wish of most of us.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.
So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.
I broadly agree (though five years for tight odds isn't to my taste). It's worth remembering that the mistake was not the election call. It was the worst approach to winning since Julius Caesar charged Gergovia before realising scaling a wall was easier if you brought ladders.
Although of course if Callaghan had called it in the auumn of ’78 the Tories would probably have had a small majority and the Winter of Discontent, which would have meant a seond electiopn in 79 and Callaghan’s return.,
On the other hand, those in marginals may see Brexit as ending their political careers, so jumping ship not suicidal.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
John Smith died in May 2014. I think the abolition of Clause 4 was the topic of 2015,which was a bitter row in the Labour Party. From about 2015 on the Labour Party with Blair's very positive media presence really started to control the agenda; the government was having to defend itself at every step against the confident proposals from the Labour camp.
It was this that turned a hypothetical Labour majority in 1995 to an actual Labour landslide in 1997.
Now, it's a certainty that will happen because there's no way we'll be offered single market membership without an unacceptable humungous price tag. So Labour will vote against. May will have no time to negotiate a change, and it won't matter because the EU won't listen.
So Labour and a few Conservatives vote against and we are out with no deal at all.
Why then are Labour suggesting it? And why haven't the political commentators put this to the Labour spokesmen?
I do have a cynical view. It's called party before country (and that's the kind version) And no, as I've said before, I don't believe Juncker or Barnier are gagging to give us a good deal, if only they were asked nicely.
Politics has always been a child's playground, but it does seem to have worsened lately.
Incidentally I posted on here that in my experience working class leavers were very unlikely to vote Conservative. It is one of the conclusions the survey draws too.
From a British perspective, it is politically impossible for a UK govt to be on the hook for continuing aid to prop up the EZ, improve roads in Spain or Romania, etc, BEYOND 2022.
For the EU, it is improbable that they could continue to fund the level of spending that they currently enjoy unless they replace UK current financial input. Almost certainly, there will be a fudge, which involves us entering into agreements to 'run' joint projects for which we will simply 'pay too much' - thereby creating some surplus that will be used to soften the blow.
Secondly, each nation will have pinch points. The Spanish/Portuguese - Tourism. Germany - manufactured exports. France - Agriculture & tourism. EU Hauliers across the 27. EU Air Carriers across the 27. France/Spain/ Netherlands - Fishing. The wailing will be tremendous, not just from British companies, but from EU based companies.
When it comes down to it, all politics is local - and that applies to the 27 as much as it does us, and the national govts won't be able to ignore damaged sectors. There will be a deal, nuts and bolts maybe (i.e no FTA), but there will be a deal, however long it takes.
What most advocates mean by “no deal” is a negotiated arrangement to leave the EU without a free trade arrangement. In other words, get this, a deal to have no deal. That’s because they appreciate that actually having no deal at all, no negotiated agreement of any kind, promises so much chaos and economic damage to Britain as to be utterly unacceptable.
When Philip Hammond posited, for instance, that no deal might involve the grounding of aircraft after Brexit he was ridiculed by those claiming no one would ever allow this to happen. But this ridicule expresses confidence that no deal would be accompanied by….a deal.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-need-to-play-for-time-on-brexit-gh5xktcnb
But you still wouldn't want to invite a Leaver home to tea.
aiui, of all the pollsters, their panel is the biggest and they have the most complete demographic picture.
One thing is clear though, the ABC1C2DE categories are useless.
Possibly even worse than useless.
Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132100025
Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.
no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne
I have a statue of her in my garden
Inflation is always mentioned although that was in many ways an inheritence from the Barber boom and the oil shock of 1973 whereas the recession of 1975, when unemployment first became endemic in Britain (hence the 'Labour isn't Working' posters), rarely is.
From 1977q3 to 1978q4 there was actually strong economic growth:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna
It was this growth that led to both Labour's recovery in the polls in 1978 and the pay claims and strikes of the winter of discontent.
By 2022 we will also have had the 2020 US presidential election, which on current US polling will be comfortably won by Bernie Sanders, while the next French presidential election is due to be in April and May 2022 and in which Melenchon is likely to be perhaps Macron's main rival. So by June 2022 a PM Corbyn may not seem so outlandish after all but in line with the international trend.
To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.
Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.
She lacked class.
Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.
You also misunderstand your fellow countrymen.
Look at the polls. Trust the voters.
They are not misunderstood, and do not require educating.
I’m still hoping that at some point during one of the Brexit votes, we’ll see a photo of Ken Clarke and Kate Hoey join each other for a glass of something strong on the Terrace, their own unofficial pairing for the evening.
Because the issues which were damaging the Conservatives in 2017 would only have increased in effect by 2020.
Although if Corbyn had been replaced by a wishy-washy EdM type then Labour might have struggled to exploit the Conservative weaknesses.
yeh because Osborne did so much for the little people, leprachauns have a shrine to him
the sad thing is maybe she should have left him in place since most the current shit was caused by him and he could have been made clean up his own messes
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Another rinsing for Labour outside of London next year might have been a tipping point.
There is plenty of time to agree the concept of an FTA during the A50 process, with the details (and more relevantly the EU ratification) being worked out in due course.
If we can't agree an FTA now, what makes anyone think it could be agreed during an extension?
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.
Fuck’s sake man. Do you think she wasn’t damaged by it?
The argument is six different databases are less hackable than one central one.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Good question:
"What would you rather the police do: investigate Twitter trolls or your ransacked home?
Philip Johnston"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/would-rather-police-do-investigate-twitter-trolls-ransacked/
There's a clear path to a 2021 GE - the Transition Period is strictly two years and ends on March 31st 2021.
Global Britain is launched with much fanfare, a couple of FTAs (Canada and NZ perhaps ?) and the Chancellor shows his largesse (ooer) with some tax cuts and big spending plans to spread a large dollop of "feel good" and an election is called for May 6th.
Some on here seems to think with the jolly old optimist Boris at the helm zip-wiring his way across the land and the steady hand of Gove on the financial tiller and a strong tailwind of unaffordable tax cuts to steer the mighty "HMS Global Britain" on its way, everyone will forget the past, focus on the future and return the Conservatives (re-branded for the fourth or fifth time).
Hint:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1006F/production/_90474656_police_numbers3_624.png
Britain is just, well, better under labour.
Sorting out this tory mess is going to be a 2 term job.
A lot, indeed, perhaps all, will rest on the personality of the new Tory leader in 2019. A Boris type figure with a decent sized ego may take the risk in order to have a mandate.
I suspected she was like that all along, I had a bad experience with her wayback in 2002, convinced myself it was an outlier and I'd got her wrong - because I wanted to believe that - and then my original view was vindicated.
In any case all other issues aside, it would be absolutely suicidal for the Cons to pursue a no deal which would destroy their reputation (such that it still exists) for economic competence.
People often point to the difference between the deficit, or inflation, or some other economic aggregate under Lab vs Cons usually noting that under Lab it was worse. Which as has been pointed out on this thread already was often not the case. It is simply the perception that the Cons run the economy better than Lab and if this perception goes, the Cons have precious little left.
Keep her head down, not rock the boat, quietly keep on keeping on: not too much to ask.
And OK, the polls tell you you are going to get a stonking majority, sure, let's go for it, try to realise that landslide. But don't all of a sudden think you are Boadicea when you have hitherto been, well, Theresa May.
I see no evidence that Labour are willing to accept that any more than the Conservatives are.
But whichever government it is finally forced upon will not enjoy the experience.
I understand the frustrations of some of those who voted for Corbyn, but he offers no solutions.
One of my key basic criteria for any candidate for PM from any party is that they must be a patriot. Corbyn has demonstrated time and time again he is anything but and would rather side with our enemies.
You wouldn't get Blair, Brown, Callaghan or Wilson doing that. Labour in the 1930s to Hitler and Atlee post war to communism were also very brave and patriotic, and stood up for the UK's interests, as well as those of the wider world.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
She and her team got high on their own product.
Think an early Corbyn reshuffle with no recognised interim leader to undertake it, nobody wanting to take jobs and the clock ticking to midnight.
One thing that has surprised me is I don't think there has been a written Ministerial Direction on universal credit. If the civil servants really think it is going to be a train wreck - they should surely have asked for one by now?